Prohibitions against gays are perfectly compatible with the Rothbardian and Hoppean schools of libertarianism which emphasize the right of free association and free exclusion and the right of the property owner to set standards of behavior that encourage the long-term health of the community because it's in the best interests of the property owner. Hoppe in particular spends a lot of time criticizing the idea that libertarians cannot place any sorts of restrictions on behavior and in his book explicitly gives an example of a society that bans gays.
In distinct contrast, a society in which the right to exclusion is fully
restored to owners of private property would be profoundly unegalitarian, intolerant, and discriminatory. There would be little or no "tolerance" and "open-mindedness" so dear to left-libertarians. Instead, one
would be on the right path toward restoring the freedom of association and
exclusion implied in the institution of private property, if only towns and
villages could and would do what they did as a matter of course until
well into the nineteenth century in Europe and the United States. There
would be signs regarding entrance requirements to the town, and, once
in town, requirements for entering specific pieces of property (for example, no beggars, bums, or homeless, but also no homosexuals, drug users,
Jews, Moslems, Germans, or Zulus), and those who did not meet these
entrance requirements would be kicked out as trespassers. Almost instantly, cultural and moral normalcy would reassert itself.
Since Hoppe is a libertarian, he sees this realized as the property owner setting standards of behavior that residents would agree to through contract law: those standards would be made available to you in advance in the form of a contract, and you would have to agree to them prior to taking up residence.
It should be noted that lolberts have a seething hatred of Hoppe and call him every name in the book simply because he wants to allow property owners to discriminate on any basis they so choose.
The two are so intellectually incestuous I don't see why you bothered to distinguish them as separate "schools" when they were really just two blokes that nobody agreed with (besides u apparently). They both share a tiny little gay-bashing island in a sea of libertarians who think they were haters with a suspect understanding of liberty.
WE HAVE a school of thought that arrives at exactly what you want. It's Heinleinism; Service Guarantees Citizenship (Would you like to know more?). But it's not libertarianism, so don't call it that.
What qualifications allow you to so definitively make that claim? He proposes stateless societies wholly based on self-ownership, property rights, and contract law. In what way is that incompatible with libertarianism?
And why are you so quick to spurn and insult potential allies?
It is not necessary to be libertine to be libertarian. But the maximum stance a libertarian can take on libertinism is "it's not my thing". Anything less permissive is hypocritical. If you think the libertinism of the individual should be subjugated to higher needs of the community, YOU ARE NOT LIBERTARIAN. Fullstop.
There is no intellectually honest out from that. To be libertarian is to be tolerant of shit you don't like even if you know it harms the community.
AND I SAY THAT fully acknowledging that libertinism is bad for the community. It's a failing of libertarianism, and why we have to move AWAY from libertarianism as a foundation and towards Heinleinism.
I like not having to watch out for used needles left by the homeless who shoot heroin in the street. And for the police to have some way to punish people who shoot heroin and/or leave used needles in the street. If that makes me Tipper Gore (or Hitler like the last guy called me) then so be it.
Prohibitions against gays are perfectly compatible with the Rothbardian and Hoppean schools of libertarianism which emphasize the right of free association and free exclusion and the right of the property owner to set standards of behavior that encourage the long-term health of the community because it's in the best interests of the property owner. Hoppe in particular spends a lot of time criticizing the idea that libertarians cannot place any sorts of restrictions on behavior and in his book explicitly gives an example of a society that bans gays.
Since Hoppe is a libertarian, he sees this realized as the property owner setting standards of behavior that residents would agree to through contract law: those standards would be made available to you in advance in the form of a contract, and you would have to agree to them prior to taking up residence.
It should be noted that lolberts have a seething hatred of Hoppe and call him every name in the book simply because he wants to allow property owners to discriminate on any basis they so choose.
Hoppe called himself a libertarian. That's not the same as being one.
The guy spent 25 years growing up in German before coming over to the United States and beginning to talk about liberty. I'm going to stand with his actual libertarian critics and question whether he really understood the concept.
The two are so intellectually incestuous I don't see why you bothered to distinguish them as separate "schools" when they were really just two blokes that nobody agreed with (besides u apparently). They both share a tiny little gay-bashing island in a sea of libertarians who think they were haters with a suspect understanding of liberty.
WE HAVE a school of thought that arrives at exactly what you want. It's Heinleinism; Service Guarantees Citizenship (Would you like to know more?). But it's not libertarianism, so don't call it that.
What qualifications allow you to so definitively make that claim? He proposes stateless societies wholly based on self-ownership, property rights, and contract law. In what way is that incompatible with libertarianism?
And why are you so quick to spurn and insult potential allies?
Because liberty and libertarianism doesn't mean jack if you only mean liberty to do the shit you approve of.
You, and him, are quite literally as bad as Tipper fucking Gore in my eyes.
It is not necessary to be libertine to be libertarian. But the maximum stance a libertarian can take on libertinism is "it's not my thing". Anything less permissive is hypocritical. If you think the libertinism of the individual should be subjugated to higher needs of the community, YOU ARE NOT LIBERTARIAN. Fullstop.
There is no intellectually honest out from that. To be libertarian is to be tolerant of shit you don't like even if you know it harms the community.
AND I SAY THAT fully acknowledging that libertinism is bad for the community. It's a failing of libertarianism, and why we have to move AWAY from libertarianism as a foundation and towards Heinleinism.
I like not having to watch out for used needles left by the homeless who shoot heroin in the street. And for the police to have some way to punish people who shoot heroin and/or leave used needles in the street. If that makes me Tipper Gore (or Hitler like the last guy called me) then so be it.